It's a good point. The only use it serves in the actual film is to explain how the Russians are getting through an unexplored rain forest...even though after it's blow it up they're all speeding through magical clear roads (which isn't something that would ever bother me in a movie like this, but I think the fact that the Jungle Cutter exists only as long as it takes for Indy to locate a bazooka makes it stand out much more). Or, maybe that gag where the spinning blade nonviolently bounces down the caravan was supposed to be worth it? Was Spielberg trying to make some environmentalist message, that the Russians were totally bad because they were decimating the Amazon? (Who cares within the context of a movie like this?!)

The simple matter is that they screwed up. To me "What ifs" become important when the missed opportunity is so huge, obvious, and distracting that it actually takes away from the enjoyment from the movie. As for why they didn't do anything with the jungle cutter? My disconcerting gut instinct is that Spielberg was opposed to the violence that would come out of it or worse, failed to think of it at all.

It's a good point. The only use it serves in the actual film is to explain how the Russians are getting through an unexplored rain forest...even though after it's blow it up they're all speeding through magical clear roads (which isn't something that would ever bother me in a movie like this, but I think the fact that the Jungle Cutter exists only as long as it takes for Indy to locate a bazooka makes it stand out much more). Or, maybe that gag where the spinning blade nonviolently bounces down the caravan was supposed to be worth it? Was Spielberg trying to make some environmentalist message, that the Russians were totally bad because they were decimating the Amazon? (Who cares within the context of a movie like this?!)

The simple matter is that they screwed up. To me "What ifs" become important when the missed opportunity is so huge, obvious, and distracting that it actually takes away from the enjoyment from the movie. As for why they didn't do anything with the jungle cutter? My disconcerting gut instinct is that Spielberg was opposed to the violence that would come out of it or worse, failed to think of it at all.

I can't believe it's a violence thing, because it doesn't have to be violent (or at least no more violent than what was already on show in KOTCS). It doesn't help that there were several leaked pictures of it during production... and I think we all made a big assumption that it was going to be central to an even bigger set piece. Saying that, even it's introduction (foilage being cut up into splinters) seems to be a statement of intent.. but which never plays out. Strange...

I have to say I'm more inclined to think that something just didn't work on set, so they decided to go the other way... but that said, where are the production shots showing an alternative chase/fight?

I don't think there was an alternate version, except maybe at a script level at some point. As for the Jungle Chase being used to its full potential having violence akin to the rest of the film, I really can't agree. Having a Russian end up falling into the blades, even if it happens offscreen, is way more violent than anything in the rest of the movie. Closest thing would be Dovchenko's fate, but it's simply not as visceral.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

It doesn't help that there were several leaked pictures of it during production... and I think we all made a big assumption that it was going to be central to an even bigger set piece.

Was it that big an assumption though? Wouldn't utilizing such a vehicle in a big way in an Indiana Jones movie seem head-slappingly obvious? Even if I'd never seen a leaked picture, I still would have been pretty taken aback in the theater by the fact that this giant destructive machine was blown up before anything could be done with it. It was plain distracting that it was handled that way. I just have a hard time believing that the same guy who directed the first three films could have let that idea slip past him. But then, I also wouldn't have believed it if you'd told me that Indy would go down three waterfalls with zero tension or that the head villain of the movie's fate would amount to some purple fire and quick transformation into dust particles.

The idea sounds like it would be awesome, but then you have to consider the motivation behind trying to hijack or destroy the vehicle. Why would Indy need to get to the jungle cutter?

When he went after the tank in Last Crusade, there was a reason - to rescue Henry and Marcus.

But Indy's goals in KotCS are different. He's trying to rescue Ox and get the skull.

Now, I could see maybe the chase weaving in and out of vehicles and maybe a jeep of soldiers getting rammed by the jungle cutter or something, but for Indy to try and commandeer the jungle cutter, there would have to be a narrative reason.

Just the act of firing on it with an RPG and disabling many vehicles in the convoy served more of a purpose. Indy always tries to cause a diversion or some chaos in order to gain the upper hand.

I was glad to see Indiana Jones finally get to use a rocket launcher after not using on in Raiders. But a nice bit of direction "For the fans" could have been Indy looking in the back of the truck and finding that weapon he never got to use! Imagine the possible look on Indy's face when he recognized his old friend...the rocket launcher.

Anyway the absence of the Tree Cutter fight was a shame...and i never got my look.
And sadly that was the ONLY time Indy fired a weapon

The idea sounds like it would be awesome, but then you have to consider the motivation behind trying to hijack or destroy the vehicle. Why would Indy need to get to the jungle cutter?

Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

And the tank chase in Last Crusade is equally arbitrary. Not because Marcus and Henry Sr. are in the tank, but because there's a tank in the first place. Why a freaking tank? (Even Indy observes it as kinda weird.) Well, to do an awesome tank chase, of course. Marcus and Henry Sr. were just the reason the screenplay concocted to get Indy involved, just like having the skull being in the hands of someone on the jungle cutter, or giving the Russians incentive to use the jungle cutter as a weapon against Indy's vehicle, or whatever, would have been perfectly fine excuses for the Indy4 screenplay to do with that giant, cool-looking, expensive prop what was obvious should have been done.

But now we're suddenly worried about "motivation" regarding elements within set pieces in a series where such things are established to be of little importance. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the motivation the movie supplies for actual story beats? Like, say, in the film's entire third act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nitzsche

for Indy to try and commandeer the jungle cutter, there would have to be a narrative reason.

Just like there was a "narrative reason" for the Russians to have an RPG in the first place, or, more to the point, to store it in the back of the jeep where the enemies are being held captive, enemies who have proven time and time again to be impossible to contain. You know as well as I do that the movie included an RPG because it was cool, plain and simple. And if they would have gotten the jungle cutter more involved, no matter the explanation, it would have been for the same reason.

Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

And the tank chase in Last Crusade is equally arbitrary. Not because Marcus and Henry Sr. are in the tank, but because there's a tank in the first place. Why a freaking tank? (Even Indy observes it as kinda weird.) Well, to do an awesome tank chase, of course. Marcus and Henry Sr. were just the reason the screenplay concocted to get Indy involved, just like having the skull being in the hands of someone on the jungle cutter, or giving the Russians incentive to use the jungle cutter as a weapon against Indy's vehicle, or whatever, would have been perfectly fine excuses for the Indy4 screenplay to do with that giant, cool-looking, expensive what was obviously should have been done.

But now we're suddenly worried about "motivation" regarding elements within set pieces in a series where such things are established to be of little importance. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the motivation the movie supplies for actual story beats? Like, say, in the film's entire third act?

LOL! We can always find a logical reason for a Tree Cutter Fight, let's see? As stated before, Under the orders of Spalko the tree cutter tries to take out Marion, Indy and Mutt's truck -let's call it the family RV.

OR Spalko hitches a ride on the Tree Cutter whilst in possession of the Skull.

OR Maybe the Jones family are locked in a cage attached to the tree cutter.

OR The tree Cutter threatens the Monkeys habitat and Indiana returns the previous favor and attacks the occupants, maybe the monkeys return like the Ewoks.

How about the scenario in which Mac is actually a double agent, reveals such to Indy, and then finds his life threatened by the jungle cutter, because he's outlived his usefulness? Indy goes forth to rescue his old friend. Easy. And better writing across the board, besides.

How about the scenario in which Mac is actually a double agent, reveals such to Indy, and then finds his life threatened by the jungle cutter, because he's outlived his usefulness? Indy goes forth to rescue his old friend. Easy. And better writing across the board, besides.

I don't think there was an alternate version, except maybe at a script level at some point. As for the Jungle Chase being used to its full potential having violence akin to the rest of the film, I really can't agree. Having a Russian end up falling into the blades, even if it happens offscreen, is way more violent than anything in the rest of the movie. Closest thing would be Dovchenko's fate, but it's simply not as visceral.

So are you saying that you believe it’s required violence levels would have made it unfilmable for KOTCS? If that’s the case, then maybe we have our answer. However, I don’t necessarily agree with that. A Nazi falling onto the treads of a tank and being crushed underneath (TLC) seems to be within the violence tolerance levels of KOTCS. I’m sure they could have applied those same levels of violence. If the action/set piece worked, then the levels of violence become largely academic (as it can be reduced/increased as the director wants).

On another similar note… I find the barbequing of several Russian soldiers far more graphically violent than, for example, Pat Roach being crushed under the rock crusher (TOD). The TOD example may be more cleverly directed/edited, as the violence is implied rather than shown… but interested to know your view. Can implied violence be graphic? If so, then perhaps KOTCS is more graphically violent than we give it credit for???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Was it that big an assumption though? Wouldn't utilizing such a vehicle in a big way in an Indiana Jones movie seem head-slappingly obvious? Even if I'd never seen a leaked picture, I still would have been pretty taken aback in the theater by the fact that this giant destructive machine was blown up before anything could be done with it. It was plain distracting that it was handled that way. I just have a hard time believing that the same guy who directed the first three films could have let that idea slip past him. But then, I also wouldn't have believed it if you'd told me that Indy would go down three waterfalls with zero tension or that the head villain of the movie's fate would amount to some purple fire and quick transformation into dust particles.

I’m not saying it’s an unjustifiable assumption, but it’s an assumption nonetheless (and big if we believed it were to be as significant as the tank). It’s not as if Lucas or Spielberg said “Yep - there is a great set piece on top of a jungle cutter”. Missed opportunity? Yep perhaps (not yet understanding the reasons of omission). Mis-sold? I don’t believe so. I remember prior to the release of TLC, snippets being released about action aboard a Zeppelin. My initial thought was “cool… we’re going to see Indy escaping an exploding airship”… but obviously it never panned out that way, and the Zeppelin was quite insignificant in the end.

Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

Agree completely. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean it work's in practice. If included/incorporated, it could have just been an additional scene for us to squabble over. Hence my interest in understanding whether it was ever an option and if so, what point was it dropped? For me, to drop it/disregard it because it doesn't work is part of the movie making process, and it acceptable. To never identify/assess it's potential merits for what is, an action scene, would be rather short-sighted.

Whatever the reason, and potential set piece aside (can’t remember who suggested it), but I’d much rather have Mutt commandeering the jungle cutter to get to Indy/Spalko, than using the monkeys and vines option. But hey ho.

Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!

Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!

a perfect opportunity for suspense and action, instead we get fencing lessons, monkey vine swinging and groin whacking jokes. Arg.

Sad but true!

Yeah I keep forgetting or blocking out moments like Marion giving fencing pointers, or the ridiculous overuse of groin whacking jokes! The vine swinging is a whole other story, and the more I think of it, the more mystifying it is that it was actually in the film!

Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!

I'd have to disagree as, on the whole, I think the jungle chase is a pretty darned good action scene... and IMHO, is a better action scene than many of the other summer releases provided us with. I certainly can't think of any better action scenes in 'Close Encounters' and 'War of the Worlds'. That said, there was certainly room for Spielberg to up the anti in this section of KOTCS.

For me, as much as I disliked the application of the fencing scene (as in principle it's still a sound concept), and the vine swinging shenanigans (which even in theory is dodgy)... they seemed to mirror, or ape (excuse the pun), the Henry Jones Senior/Marcus fight in the tank (TLC) i.e. a mild distraction from the real action that Indy is involved in.

KOTCS is the worst offender for sure, in that there is little value in both the fencing scene or vine swing, but I do recall initially disliking how the tank scene cut back and fourth between the action orientated external stuff, and the internal silly stuff with Henry and Marcus.

My point??? Although KOTCS gets it so wrong with those particular elements, it does use the same template as the best action scene in TLC. And if you can forgive those elements, the jungle chase is a pretty good set piece.

So are you saying that you believe it’s required violence levels would have made it unfilmable for KOTCS? If that’s the case, then maybe we have our answer.

I think it's only one possible answer, but it's food for thought at the very least. I don't know why you accept it as a possible answer though, when you've made it clear that you think Indy4 is more or less on the same level as the other movies with regard to violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

However, I don’t necessarily agree with that. A Nazi falling onto the treads of a tank and being crushed underneath (TLC) seems to be within the violence tolerance levels of KOTCS.

So where are the analogous moments in Indy4? Quite a few subordinate Nazis were offed in the tank chase, but there were zero dispatched Russians in the jungle chase (who were at worst punched or thrown off cars), and then Spalko's driver in the ant scene. Dovchenko's death is analogous to Colonel Vogel's fall off the cliff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

I’m sure they could have applied those same levels of violence. If the action/set piece worked, then the levels of violence become largely academic (as it can be reduced/increased as the director wants).

Well I agree that the fundamental concern should absolutely be whether or not the set piece "works," but whether or not the level of violence is academic is up to the individual viewer, and is what I was trying to figure out with the "all about gore" thread. Obviously it wasn't academic for a lot of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

On another similar note… I find the barbequing of several Russian soldiers far more graphically violent than, for example, Pat Roach being crushed under the rock crusher (TOD). The TOD example may be more cleverly directed/edited, as the violence is implied rather than shown… but interested to know your view. Can implied violence be graphic? If so, then perhaps KOTCS is more graphically violent than we give it credit for???

Wow, that's a pretty...interesting...view. Still, to each his own. If Indy4 fully satisfied you in the realm of violence, then I'm at least as envious as I am confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

I’m not saying it’s an unjustifiable assumption, but it’s an assumption nonetheless (and big if we believed it were to be as significant as the tank). It’s not as if Lucas or Spielberg said “Yep - there is a great set piece on top of a jungle cutter”.

The reasons for omission, assuming there was an omission at all (which we have no evidence of), are completely unrelated to whether or not it was a missed opportunity, so I don't see where the "perhaps" comes into play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Mis-sold? I don’t believe so. I remember prior to the release of TLC, snippets being released about action aboard a Zeppelin. My initial thought was “cool… we’re going to see Indy escaping an exploding airship”… but obviously it never panned out that way, and the Zeppelin was quite insignificant in the end.

Did anyone say it was mis-sold? I think it was "mis-sold" in the sense that based on the other movies, when I see a giant cool-looking vehicle/piece of machinery in an Indy film I expect to be used extensively as part of a set piece, or at least otherwise used for a purpose more substantial than: nothing. No one is accusing Spielberg, Lucas, or the marketing department of claiming something about the jungle cutter and delivering something else though. Not sure why you'd even bring that idea up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Agree completely. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean it work's in practice. If included/incorporated, it could have just been an additional scene for us to squabble over.

So, in other words, there's no excuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Hence my interest in understanding whether it was ever an option and if so, what point was it dropped? For me, to drop it/disregard it because it doesn't work is part of the movie making process, and it acceptable. To never identify/assess it's potential merits for what is, an action scene, would be rather short-sighted.

To me the "why" is not that interesting. Better use of the jungle cutter was not there, and it should have been. That's really what it comes down to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Whatever the reason, and potential set piece aside (can’t remember who suggested it), but I’d much rather have Mutt commandeering the jungle cutter to get to Indy/Spalko, than using the monkeys and vines option. But hey ho.

I don't really care who commandeers it, or if anyone commandeers it. I'd be open to whatever the hell Spielberg would have felt like doing to put the jungle cutter to actual use. There's a million ideas, and each is as good as the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

KOTCS is the worst offender for sure, in that there is little value in both the fencing scene or vine swing, but I do recall initially disliking how the tank scene cut back and fourth between the action orientated external stuff, and the internal silly stuff with Henry and Marcus.

My point??? Although KOTCS gets it so wrong with those particular elements, it does use the same template as the best action scene in TLC.

I don't see how that changes anything or is a particularly important observation. Are we supposed to appreciate poor segments of a movie for what it attempted to do, or for what its influences are?

For me, as much as I disliked the application of the fencing scene (as in principle it's still a sound concept), and the vine swinging shenanigans (which even in theory is dodgy)... they seemed to mirror, or ape (excuse the pun), the Henry Jones Senior/Marcus fight in the tank (TLC) i.e. a mild distraction from the real action that Indy is involved in.

But it's Indy himself who's positioned as the mild distraction for the majority of the jungle chase.

Oh, shut it, all of you. God, I am SO sick of you people (subtley) ripping the limbs off Crystal Skull. Stop your damn crusade against Indy 4. We know you despise the thing, so can you be quiet now? I'm furious that, all these months later, us fans are arguing and complaining about stupid things like "missed opportunities", "groin jokes", "vine swinging", "nuked fridges", "monkeys", "sword lessons", etc. Jesus, has the old flicks EVER received this much abuse?

This is a trend that has become heartbreakingly-common in Hollywood. The original creators decide to appease the fans by making a new movie starring a popular creation of theirs, waste blood and sweat and tears making a whole damn movie, and when it's released what do us fans do?

WE **** ON THEM AND DAMN THEM AND CURSE THEM AND GIVE THEM HATE MAIL AND DEATH THREATS AND SAY THEY RAPED OUR CHILDHOOD AND RUINED OUR LIVES AND IN SHORT SHOW ABSOLUTELY ZERO APPRECIATION FOR EVEN THINKING ABOUT MAKING THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** us fans. We're a bunch of cruel, unappreciative bastards with no hearts. Our idols try to give back to the people that made their movies hits in the first place, and we reply with a big whopping F-YOU. We are mean, hurtful, unfair and have NO RIGHT to give judgement on a film like KOTCS or the Star Wars Prequels. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

But the saddest thing here is that everything I have typed here is just going to be ignored and ridiculed and teased, while you asswipes refuse to listen to reason and continue to drown in your hatred and condemn Spielberg and Lucas for the rest of your days without even thinking of just how mean you are being. A true fan would LOVE KOTCS and the Prequels, not strangle them to death!!!!!!!

Screw you all! I don't care if I'm permanently kicked out by the moderators. I will NOT just stand back and watch as this terrible unfairness continues. If no one will stand up for KOTCS, then I WILL UNTIL I DIE, DAMMIT!!!!!!

I'd have to disagree as, on the whole, I think the jungle chase is a pretty darned good action scene...

It's not a terrible action scene, and there are some intense moments, specifically when they are near that beautifully rendered CGI cliff, but overall it just feels so tame compared to the other films! Not one Russian soldier got shot, run over, fell off the cliff, or ripped apart by the flying debris of the jungle cutter! If I'm mistaken I'll stand corrected, but I don't think one person even died during the whole chase, as opposed to the multiple deaths in the Raiders truck chase, the TOD mine cart roller coaster ride, and the tank chase in LC. Once again a body count doesn't make a movie, but when a film that is an installment in a series veers in a different direction with one of its most crucial elements, the big chase, it's going to be found lacking! If the jungle cutter had been used for more then just an explosion sequence, or if one of the ducks had gone off the cliff, or if some of the soliders had been shot or run over, I honestly think a lot of people would be singing a different tune. The jumping from vehicle to vehicle was cool, but it became more of a chance to showcase Mutt's talents then show us just how much of a badass Indy still was!

Quote:

and IMHO, is a better action scene than many of the other summer releases provided us with

Yeah it's better then the chase from The Mummy 3, but it's pretty even in my opinion with the somewhat lackluster chase in The Dark Knight. Other then that I can't think of any other big chase scenes from the summer releases, can you?

Quote:

I certainly can't think of any better action scenes in 'Close Encounters' and 'War of the Worlds'. That said, there was certainly room for Spielberg to up the anti in this section of KOTCS.

You're right, Close Encounters and War of the Worlds weren't the best examples of major action scenes by Spielberg, but moreso examples of great uses of set pieces. For just basic big action scenes there aren't really many to go on where Spielberg's filmography is concerned, maybe the chase of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park or the chase of the shark by the Orca in Jaws? Still, those are more chase scenes then action scenes, so I guess the Indy films are where it's at!

Just another area where KOCS lacked. The Desert Chase and Belly of the Steel beast didn't get rid of a set piece with major potential at the beginning of the scene, just shows that Spielberg was being lazy.

The Desert Chase and Belly of the Steel beast didn't get rid of a set piece with major potential at the beginning of the scene, just shows that Spielberg was being lazy.

I dug the way the cutter was handled. It was Indy being much more efficient than in the past. No more going after the guys on horseback and fist fighting them - while getting beaten up, shot, and nearly killed in the process. This was Indy using an available weapon and taking care of the cutter before it even had a chance to become a headache.

You know, I just re-watched this scene and I am now convinced Indy had no idea what he was going to hit with the RPG.

We see him take aim and fire and then the rocket hit the jungle cutter, but then you notice as the blade starts rolling and doing its damage, the procession of vehicles down the jungle corridor are pretty fairly spaced.

First the water truck and then another truck get sliced... a couple jeeps swerve out of the way. Indy is far at the rear and suddenly they see the blade coming at them bouncing. At this point you can't really see any of the other vehicles ahead of them - they are pretty far back.

I think Indy was just aiming to hit any of the vehicles ahead of them, which makes this a lucky shot that did far more damage than expected.